Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Mangal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 29 April, 2016
1 W.P.No. 5613/2015
(Arun Mangal Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.)
29/04/2016
Shri Arun Dudawat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Sangeeta Pachauri, learned GA for the
respondents/State.
With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 10/9/2013 and FIR dated 16/9/2013 vide crime No. 409/2013.
Petitioner is proprietor of M/s Mangal Gun House and doing business of sale and purchase of arms and ammunition under valid Arms Dealer Licence. On 5/9/2013 at the time of inspection, certain irregularities were alleged to be found in the shop of the petitioner contrary to the licence condition. Therefore, an FIR has been registered against the petitioner under Section 188 of the IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that the said action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 188 of IPC as well as under Section 29/30 of the Arms Act.
State has filed return and contested the case. Shri Dudawat, at the outset placed two orders of Coordinate Bench of this Court one dated 21/8/2015 in the case of Komal Savita Vs. State of M.P. and Anr. in MCrC No. 4031/2014 and second dated 19/2/2016 in case of Ajay Kumar Vs. State of M.P. & Others in W.P.No. 7096/2013.
In both the cases, on identical facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has allowed the MCrC and writ petition respectively and quashed the respective FIRs registered against the identically placed 2 W.P.No. 5613/2015 (Arun Mangal Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) persons. The necessary observation of this Court in the matter of Komal Savita (supra) is as under:-
"In the present case, FIR dated 16.09.2013 is drawn not on the basis of complaint filed by the District Magistrate but on the basis of the report of the inspection. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of C. Muniappan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2010 SC 3718, in which it is held that:-
"(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S. 195 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 188 - Contempt of lawful authority of public servant - Prosecution for -
Complaint of concerned public servant - Essential
- Court cannot assume cognizance without such complaint - Charge under S. 188 framed against appellant in absence of complaint by competent public servant - Charge so framed and conviction made liable to be set aside."
This view is also adopted by the decision rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jiwan Kumar Vs. State of Punjab & others reported in 2008 Cri.L.J. 3576, in which it is also held that:-
"(B) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S. 195(1)(a) -
Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 188 - Proceedings under S. 188 - Institution of, on the basis of FIR - And not on basis of any complaint in writing of public servant concerned - Not permissible - FIR and proceedings are liable to be quashed." For the reasons mentioned above, petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and Crime No. 71/2013 dated 16.09.2013 registered at Police Station Morar for offence under Section 188 of IPC is quashed."
Similar in Ajay Kumar's case (supra) this Court has observed as under:-
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and on consideration of the fact, that too the reasoning to which show-cause notice for cancellation of the arms licence and registration of the F.I.R Annexure P/1 was issued recommending to cancel the same has turned down by the order Annexure 3 W.P.No. 5613/2015 (Arun Mangal Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) P/10 dated 11/08/2014, by Home Department of the M.P. and such recommendation has been consigned to record. Thus, due to subsequent development the cause do not subsists. When the cause for registration of F.I.R. u/s 188 IPC does not exists, then it may be quashed relying upon the judgment passed in case of Komal Savit Vs. State of M.P. and Another (supra).
In view of the forgoing discussion, this petition is hereby allowed quashing the FIR recognizing the order dated 11/08/2014 Annexure P/10 of the State Government. Now the period of licence has become over, however, petitioner may apply to the competent authority for renewal of the arm licence, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
Counsel for the State could not dispute the said parity drawn by the counsel for the petitioner. Resultantly, writ petition is allowed and in terms as proposed in aforesaid orders, the impugned order dated 10/9/2013 and FIR dated 16/9/2013 in Crime Case No. 409/2013 are hereby quashed.
The petitioner submits that he has moved an application for renewal of his Arms licence before the appropriate authority.
If that be so, the same shall be decided in accordance with law and for such decision (in respect of renewal of licence), it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-